Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-11-2011, 06:10 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,800
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
Apples to oranges, again. For a hiker, the kit would be a better choice than the ultra-heavy 16-50.
If you like. I hike with heavier gear all the time.

08-11-2011, 06:32 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,800
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
Given that you almost only own STAR lenses, I'd say in comparison with your kit that statement is true. Taken by itself the lens is the best kit on the market (any brand), and it's a reliable tool, capable of sharp enough results, ok contrast (a bit too harsh) and surprising saturation. You could by a wagon full of 18-55 by selling ONE of your other lenses, so the comparison isn't very fair.
At the time I wrote this, and keep in mind it was *a year an a half ago*, the only * glass I think I owned were the DA* 16-50 and 50-135.

Now, I've seen some really great shots taken with the 18-55 since then, some of which might have benefited from better glass, or maybe not. By the time you're shooting at F11, the mtf charts for the older version of the lens indicate that your resolution on the DA* is only somewhat better; and for most scaled down shots posted on the internet, well *shrug*.

f5.6 at 55mm? Fine for landscapes, but for landscapes you'll be shooting at the wide end, not the long end. For people? F5.6 isn't that exciting to me; so I'll stick by craptacular in comparison to the DA* glass.

I see that with a test on the K-5, the 18-55 WR got 3*s (photozone) for optical performance, which really is saying something from them. They haven't retested the DA* 16-50 or 50-135 on the K5 though, so we cant compare apples to apples.

Since this article, I've sold my 18-55. It wasn't going out with me on any adventures at all.

If I want diffraction all over the place, I've got the lensbaby F177 pinhole.
08-11-2011, 06:39 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,800
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jodokast96 Quote
I've heard lot's of talk about diffraction, but in all honesty, I don't think I've ever seen one clear cut example of it.
Here's a crosspost from the FF thread:

This article is great at explaining the point of diffraction, and it has a calculator you can play with at the end:

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

It also has some samples of what diffraction looks like.

It's useful to understand how this works when you are shooting at small apertures; however it's also important to recognize that sometimes you need more depth of field, and sacrificing resolution for DoF is preferable.
08-11-2011, 06:46 AM   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I beg to differ.
I'm not sure what you're differing about. I advocated a tight aperture, same as you. I just said that printed/displayed small, any loss of resolution via diffraction (or any other cause) won't be noticed.

08-11-2011, 09:32 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
f5.6 at 55mm? Fine for landscapes, but for landscapes you'll be shooting at the wide end, not the long end. For people? F5.6 isn't that exciting to me; so I'll stick by craptacular in comparison to the DA* glass.
Not sure why shooting people would ncessarily require faster than f/5.6, unless you specifically mean people in low light, or portraits eith shallow DOF. In which case, f/5.6 doesn't cut it. But no one ever said it had to be your only lens, so need to criticize the lens for not being something it was never intended to be. Might as well call the DA*16-50 "craptastic" for not being very good at wildlife.

The 18-55 combined with a prime in whatever focal length suits you best makes a pretty great combo. DA40 makes a nice choice here, unless you're specifically thinking more about formal portraits that equire a longer focal length, in case, a cheap manual 50 works.
08-11-2011, 10:05 AM   #21
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Not sure why shooting people would ncessarily require faster than f/5.6
I generally agree with you, but to be honest, I hate the kit at the 55mm (f5.6). It's just so slow, and boring. Not much subject separation when you want it, and also, not so easy to freeze action when you want to, either. It's not bad but a lot of lenses would fit my bill as more desirable. Something with f2.8 or even a little faster would be nice so you don't get caught with your pants down (seeing as 40mm - 60mm is a great range for capturing people doing stuff).

not saying that the 16-50 is the answer... there are a lot of answers in that range (40s, 43s, 50s, 55s, 58s, etc.) All of them are as fast as the zoom.

---

Referring to the OP - cool. I completely forgot about this. I remember, when I first bought the camera (and began to learn "photo" graphy!) stopping down to f40 once or twice and hinking that was just normal.. then much ater I bought the K55 + A 28 and didn't use the kit for about a year. I completely forgot about this BUT at the same time I was trying to figure out how to make a pinhole camera cover for my dslr... thanks so much!

--

EDIT... hmmm... mine only seems to go to f38?
08-11-2011, 10:30 AM   #22
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I generally agree with you, but to be honest, I hate the kit at the 55mm (f5.6). It's just so slow, and boring. Not much subject separation when you want it, and also, not so easy to freeze action when you want to, either.
Nope, it's not a high-speed lens. It does OK in lower light when ISO is boosted or on a tripod. And to make it a portrait lens, a +1 dioptre closeup adapter brings the working distance down to ~1m and drastically thins DOF. A +0.5dpt would be more convenient with working distance of1-2m, but such is hard to find. But an 18-55WR *would* be very handy for lousy weather and swamps (the kind of stuff I avoid). If I had one, it would just tempt me to abuse it, and myself...
08-11-2011, 10:37 AM   #23
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
If I had one, it would just tempt me to abuse it, and myself...
That's exactly what I do. Parade, party, beach, bike --> kit. I don't have to worry and the photos come out fine. Sometimes I'll bring something else along with me, but in situations where changing lenses is out of the question (which often means a dangerous environment for the camera) I bring the kit along... confident nothing will happen, but if it does, I won't lose any sleep over it.

08-11-2011, 05:16 PM   #24
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
Ok, so ignore the review entirely. It's F5.6 at 55mm. No more review needed
Well, at $999 it should out perform a $99 lens, well unless the sdm goes craptastic as you put it. :Hysterical:
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bag, course, da 18-55mm wr, f40, k-mount, kit, lens, light, pentax da 18-55mm, pentax lens, photozone, slr lens, water
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: M42 Lenses. Pentax Taks 35mm, 135mm, 55mm, Fujinon 55mm Peter Zack Sold Items 5 03-04-2010 05:24 PM
Pentax DA 18-55 F40 gabymarian Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 04-08-2009 06:03 PM
does any pentax film camera meter in 1/3 stops? Gooshin Pentax Film SLR Discussion 21 03-14-2009 10:04 PM
1/2 or 1/3 EV stops? Nanthiel Photographic Technique 24 09-03-2008 09:40 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top